Let us now discuss the more arcane, extreme and revolutionary, right-wing philosophy, namely anarchism. You may ask when and where in recent history have anarchist revolutionaries been successful? For the answer, we must travel back in time to Spain during the Spanish Civil War (1936-39). It was in Barcelona and surrounding districts that idealist anarchism flourished in the early period of the war as anarchists defended the radical Republican government that the communists also supported against the military insurrection of General Francisco Franco. At this point, let me recommend two fascinating references: Alexander Orlov: The FBI's KGB General by Edward Gazur (2001) and Deadly Illusions: The KGB Orlov Dossier Reveals Stalin's Master Spy by John Costello and Oleg Tsarev (1993).

The first book was written by retired FBI agent, Edward Gazur, who debriefed and protected Stalin's NKVD General, Alexander Orlov, after Orlov defected to the United States following the communists’ defeat in the Spanish Civil War. The second book, Deadly Illusions, was written with the collaboration and approval of the KGB (i.e., when the Soviet KGB files were made available following the collapse of the USSR) during the presidency of Boris Yeltsin in 1993. Although the books are supposed to be at odds with each other in reference to General Orlov's real loyalty (1), they totally agree on one point relevant to our discussion here — the elimination of the Spanish anarchists by their communist “allies” during the Spanish Civil War.

To sum it up, the naive anarchists were exterminated by their communist "friends" and comrades as the war raged. Elimination took place by communist brigades of NKVD units working under Stalin's orders. These units were sent to Spain to wipe out their anarchist allies as well as "leftist" Trotskyites, both of who were fighting their common enemy Franco. And in truth, the Soviet NKVD commandos liquidated their allies with more avidity than they fought the “fascist” forces of Generalissimo Francisco Franco. Top Soviet NKVD generals, including Alexander Orlov, carried out the liquidation. This sanguinary and infamous chapter of communist treachery has been triply confirmed by KGB General Pavel Sudoplatov in his book, Special Tasks: The Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness — A Soviet Spymaster (1994). (Incidentally, imitating his former enemy, Stalin assumed as his last official title, "Generalissimo," just like his nemesis Francisco Franco!)

Toward the end of the Spanish Civil War (1938-39), which so many useful idiots in the International Brigades considered the epic battle between fascism and "freedom," the communists had exterminated both the anarchists and Trotskyites from the “Republican” ranks, and they had done so with more treacherous courage and efficiency, frankly, than they displayed against General Franco and his military forces. And in the process, the Russian communists robbed Spain of the gold treasury accumulated over centuries of Spanish history!(1)

In Italy, no civil war was needed to liquidate the anarchist "threat" to totalitarianism. Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) crushed his former ally, anarchist Enrico Malatesta, as soon as he was no longer useful. Malatesta died miserably under house arrest imposed by his former friend, Il Duce.(2)

But before we relate the fate of the Russian anarchist revolutionaries who fought at times, side by side, with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries and the radical Mensheviks and Bolsheviks during the 1917 Russian Revolution, let us provide a little historical background as to the term "anarchism."

A Brief History of Anarchism

Russia was indeed the home of modern anarchism in the 19th century, and because of the institutions of serfdom and autocracy of the Russian Czars, the seeds of nihilism and anarchism fell on fertile soil. In its essence, anarchism is a political philosophy that espouses the beliefs that (1) no government is best, and therefore the state should be abolished; and (2) traditional institutions are intrinsically evil and corrupt the inherent goodness in man.

In England in 1793, in typical British non-violent utilitarian fashion, communal anarchism was propounded by William Godwin, who believed in creating autonomous communes. In these idyllic communes men could be free to act without any restricting social arrangements and forge utopias of collective goodness.

Such was not the case in France where that same year some historians studying the chaotic days of the French Revolution and predisposed to finding political anarchism in those events, have mentioned Jacques Rous and Rene Hebert, leaders of the Enrages, as possible anarchists. But those two men preached class warfare, hatred and mob rule, not anarchism. Gracchus Babeuf has also been called an anarchist because of his fomenting unrest and calls for social justice. But in fact, Babeuf was a man of the left with more authoritarian and communistic ideas than anarchistic tendencies. Babeuf was a member of the "Conspiracy of Equals," who wanted to eliminate private property rights and institute wealth redistribution. Louis Auguste Blanqui and Filippo Buonarotti were also radical men of the socialist left, not anarchists.

The next genuine anarchist to come out of the pages of history is the Frenchman Pierre J. Proudhon (1809-1865), a member of the Constituent Assembly after the 1848 Revolution. Proudhon preached non-violent mutualism. Believing in the goodness and ethics of men and opposed to the use of force, he contended that social progress would eventually make government utterly superfluous in the affairs of men.

But now, we leave behind dreamy-eyed Western anarchists, and meet the father of modern anarchism, Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876; photo, right), who believed that man was destined to explode in a spontaneous mass rebellion against authority. Bakunin was a Russian revolutionary as well as the greatest exponent of anarchism. He actually participated in the 1848 Revolutions in both France and Germany (Saxony). He made his way to London where he met Alexander Herzen (1812-1870), an exiled Russian socialist, and Karl Marx (1818-1883), a communist. In what can only be called the clash of the century between the ultimate Right and Left political philosophies, Bakunin clashed with Marx and was expelled (1872) from the International Workingmen's Association. While Bakunin espoused the violent overthrow of the existing order, so that all men could live in absolute goodness and freedom, Marx, as we well know, espoused equal violence but directed in the class struggle, so that man in the form of the ruling, hated bourgeoisie would be overthrown and enslaved by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Russian Anarchism in Literature as well as in Theory and Practice

In State and Revolution (1917), Lenin wrote: "The proletariat only needs the state for a certain length of time. It is not the elimination of the state as a final aim that separates us from the anarchists. But we assert that to attain this end, it is essential to utilize temporarily against the exploiters, the instruments, the means, and the procedures of political power, in the same way as it is essential, in order to eliminate the classes, as to instigate temporary dictatorship of the oppressed class." The political reality was even more stark and sinister than could be expressed in his words. Lenin and later Stalin both justified the monopoly of power and even police state repression and the use of terror, that they arrogated to themselves and the Communist Party, by claiming to be the purported representatives of the proletariat!

Even the Russian novelist and philosopher, Count Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) was thought by some to have dwelt on the fringes of anarchism, particularly as he aged, but the great author only preached spiritual non-violent revolution with "passive resistance to evil." And, Prince Pyotr Kropotkin (1842-1921; photo, left) enters the picture when there was such a streak of anarchism in Russia that it not only affected philosophers but princes as well!

Given the dilemma and conflict expressed between Marx and Bakunin (as well as by Lenin) — each aiming to overthrow states and governments either to create a utopia on earth with no government at all or a "classless society" under the pretenses of the dictatorship of the proletariat — it is no wonder that the thoughtful Prince wanted to reconcile the irreconcilable, communism and anarchism. So, how was this to happen? The state would disappear in a popular revolution.

Tolstoy did not live long enough to see his spiritual revolution. Kropotkin, though, did live long enough to witness the "popular" revolution, but not the emergence of the egalitarian utopia that he dreamt of for his native Russia. Nor did he witness the creation of a peaceful, happy, classless society, or even a true dictatorship of the proletariat, but instead the Prince witnessed the creation of a violent, sanguinary, totalitarian Bolshevik regime, headed by Lenin and enforced by Dzerzhinsky’s feared, repressive, omnipotent secret police, the Cheka. Prince Kropotkin did not like what he saw and although he was an almost iconic figure in revolutionary circles, he was powerless to stop the communist juggernaut and the hell-on-earth that would further emerge under Stalin. After his death in 1921, the fate of anarchism, like all other political philosophies in Russia, was doomed to extinction.

A prodigious disciple of Mikhail Bakunin was the nihilist-anarchist, Sergei Nechaev (1847-1882). Nechaev is an important individual in our story because he is not only a revolutionary and political theorist but he also bridges gaps between history and legend, and between legend and literature. Nechaev became the model for the main protagonist, Peter Verkhovensky, in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's (1821-1881; photo, below) novel The Devils. The fictional character of Verkhovensky, a fiendish revolutionary terrorist, was inspired by Nechaev, in an instance of art imitating life. Nechaev had actually been tried and convicted of the murder of a fellow revolutionary by the name of I. Ivanov. This celebrated episode in 19th century Tsarist Russia is depicted in Dostoyevsky’s novel with the murder of Ivan Shatov. The character of Shatov is murdered — just like Ivanov was in real life — because he had turned his back on radicalism and revolution, and wished to return to his Russian Orthodox faith. Nechaev had become a legend in revolutionary circles, and now he was immortalized as a personification of evil in Dostoevsky's novel.

The word "nihilist" was resurrected from ancient Greek metaphysics and applied to the Russian philosophy and political scene by Ivan Turgenev (1818-1883) in his masterpiece novel, Fathers and Sons, published in 1862. The novel's title refers to the growing rift between two generations in mid-19th century Russia. And nihilism in the novel was used as a pejorative term inspired by one of the main characters, Yevgeny Bazarov, the young cynic who believed in nothing and exuded only utter contempt for the society and intelligentsia to which he belonged. Dostoyevsky went a step further with his characters in both The Devils (Stavrogin and Verkhovensky; 1872) and in Crime and Punishment (Raskolnikov; 1866)

Anarchists and Communist Revolutionaries

Sergei Nechaev (photo, left) was not only a terrorist, who founded the terrorist organization People's Retribution, but he also considered himself a nihilist, so it is no wonder that in Russian cultural history the term “nihilist” has been linked to violent revolution and anarchism. The People's Will (Narodnaya Volya), the successor terrorist organization to Peoples' Retribution, to which Nechaev was associated even while in prison at the Peter-Paul Fortress, was responsible for the assassination of Czar Alexander II in 1881.(3)

From the 1880s, anarchists became more and more allied to left-wing revolutionaries, believing they were on the path to creating a communistic utopia that would appear as soon as the state and societal institutions were destroyed. They mistakenly believed that an end to property ownership and the corrupting institutions of the bourgeoisie would usher in a Rousseauean, classless state with no need for government. However, the more organized, much better disciplined, and conspiratorial communists knew better. Nevertheless, anarchist and other terrorist organizations became more violent, not only preaching terror but also direct assassination, often with lethal success. In addition to the assassination of Russia’s Czar Alexander II in 1881, the Czar who emancipated the serfs in 1861, anarchists would claim responsibility for the following list of assassinations: the French President Carnot was stabbed to death in 1894; the Austro-Hungarian Empress Elizabeth was shot to death in 1898; and King Humbert I of Italy was assassinated in 1900. Anarchist violence even spilled over into the New World when U.S. President William McKinley was mortally wounded in 1901 at the Pan American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. Numerous other dignitaries including a Russian Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich (1904) and Russia’s Interior Minister Vyacheslav von Phleve (1904) and Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin (1911) would also be assassinated in the first two decades of the 20th century by successor organizations to both anarchists and the Peoples’ Will, primarily the Socialist-Revolutionaries.

As other revolutionaries formed organizations, or founded or join political parties, anarchists refused to organize on principle. Socialists and communists established political parties within the framework of established government institutions, but anarchists continued to refuse to do so. And yet, right-wing anarchists and left-wing socialists fought shoulder to shoulder against the existing bourgeoisie order in Russia. While the anarchists remained politically naive, the communists, particularly the always savvy but malicious Bolsheviks, understood the political nature of their "allies" and at heart considered them a counter-revolutionary movement that would require extermination once the Bolsheviks obtained power.

During the February Revolution of Aleksandr Kerensky (1881-1970) and the establishment of the Provisional government, the anarchists supported the Bolsheviks with the slogan "All power to the Soviets." They also exerted a powerful influence upon the politics and militancy of the Kronstadt sailors, who were crucial to the Bolsheviks seizure of power.(3) But, the Bolsheviks’ systematic liquidation of their fellow anarchist “allies” would begin in April 1918 on the direct orders of Lenin and Trotsky (photo, right), only a few months after the 1917 October (November in the new calendar) Revolution. The anarchist leaders were arrested, imprisoned or shot. Likewise, the Mensheviks and even the Bolsheviks' closest allies, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries (Left SR), were purged. Needless to say, the Kadet Party (Constitutional Democrats) members of the Duma, who supposedly had constitutional immunity, had to flee and were hunted down. Lenin had already, within days of the triumph of his Revolution, issued a decree declaring the Kadets "enemies of the people," a phrase that would be used more and more as the terror of the Revolution unfolded. Kadet leaders Shingarev and Kokoskin (1918) were located and killed in their hospital beds. Viktor Chernov (1873-1952), a leader of the Left SR, escaped but most other Left SRs were also hunted down and liquidated. And after an unsuccessful Left SR uprising on July 6, 1918 against the Bolsheviks (who had months earlier shut down the All-Russian Constituent Assembly) twenty Left SR hostages were summarily shot. The courageous Mariya Spiridonova, another Left SR leader, made no attempt to flee. She was arrested and sent to the gulag. She would remain toiling in the labor camps until 1941, when Stalin finally had her shot.

Conclusion

Let us now conclude the story of the anarchists. The Red Bolsheviks had not yet consolidated their power and were now locked in a life and death, bloody civil war struggle with the anti-communist Whites. In the Ukraine, Nestor Makhno (1889-1934) formed the anarchist Revolutionary Insurgent Army of the Ukraine to support the Bolsheviks during the period of 1918-1919. His anarchist army had fought Germans, Austro-Hungarians, then their Ukrainian nationalist brothers, and finally General Denikin's White Volunteer Army. But none of this helped Makhno. True to communist form, Lenin and Trotsky turned against their former “ally” and his anarchist band, and ruthlessly eliminated them. Makhno escaped but died of tuberculosis while in exile, forgotten and in dire poverty, presumably an enemy of the people.

Are there historical lessons to be learned here? Yes, for example: (1) The dreamy-eyed, extreme right-wing anarchists have never been a match for the conspiratorial communists and socialists of the left; (2) Totalitarianism and collectivism are evil philosophies derived from the incitement of the dark side of human nature; (3) Since men are no angels, some government is needed to restrain them; and (4) History teaches us that as far as the creative mind of men is concerned, a Constitutional Republic, a limited government of laws and not of men, is the best form of government ever created. Injustice does not rule forever, and so in 1989 the Berlin Wall came tumbling down and in 1991 the evil Soviet empire collapsed of its own totalitarian and collectivist weight. Finally, we must remember the words of British statesman, Edmund Burke (1729-1797), one of the founders of modern conservatism, who said, "When bad men contrive, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

In this same review I also discuss Stalin's robbery of Spanish gold, as Russian troops commanded by General Alexander Orlov were ordered to do so by Stalin while, at the same time, pulling the rug out from under their Republican Spanish allies. See also Alexander Orlov: The FBI's KGB General by Edward Gazur (2001) and Deadly Illusions: The KGB Orlov Dossier Reveals Stalin's Master Spy by John Costello and Oleg Tsarev (1993). The reader is also advised to peruse KGB General Pavel Sudoplatov's book, Special Tasks: The Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness — A Soviet Spymaster (1994). Another excellent source on the NKVD liquidation of anarchists and Trotskyites during the Spanish Civil War is The Sword and the Shield — The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin (1999).

2) An excellent source not just on anarchism but on revolutionaries of all political persuasions is Martin van Creveld's The Encyclopedia of Revolutions and Revolutionaries — From Anarchism to Zhou Enlai (1996). This book is absolutely essential for the study of revolutions and revolutionaries.

3) Harrison E. Salisbury's Black Night, White Snow (1977) is an idealized history of the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917. The book is beautifully written by a veteran journalist but unfortunately tilted with enchanting admiration to the reigning intelligentsia and the Russian radical revolutionaries, not those who toppled the Czar in the February Revolution, but only those who took the spoils later in the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks. The author is so mesmerizing in his enchanting narrative prose and flair for turning elegant phrases that we tend to forgive and forget his overt liberal bias exuding from the pages of his otherwise magnificent book.

Written by Dr. Miguel A. Faria

Dr. Miguel A. Faria, Jr. is a former Clinical Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery, ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.) Mercer University School of Medicine; Former member Editorial Board of Surgical Neurology (2004-2010); Member Editorial Board of Surgical Neurology International (2011-present); Recipient of the Americanism Medal from the Nathaniel Macon Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) 1998; Ex member of the Injury Research Grant Review Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2002-05; Founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel (1996-2002); Editor Emeritus, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS); Author, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995), Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997), and Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002).

An edited version of this article was published on October 27, 2011 at GOPUSA.com.

Your Part III (and Parts I & II) of the Political Spectrum series is fantastic. It is the clearest written history of anarchism I have ever seen. Beautifully written. I came to the same conclusion after my studies of the French Revolution (the actual origin of the Russian Revolution and communism as we came to know it) and the communist tactics in a number of countries. The Jacobins established the tactic of using mobs of anarchistic-like monsters to destroy all that existed--Geihart Neimeyer called it "total critique" of society. Once the destroyers had completed their nasty and bloody work, they were slaughtered. They are Lenin's "useful idiots".

The most brilliant inclusion in the communist theory was to imply that the aim was to eventually create a classless, peaceful and harmonious society which would then allow government rule to disappear. As you so brilliantly demonstrate that was the lure that the left used to attract the anarchists to their side. The Spanish Civil War was this classical tactic in operation, again as you point out. The communist leaders cannot trust each other as well. Like the Mafia, those who dream of absolute rule cannot trust their fellow criminals. One of the central emotions in totalitarianism is paranoia. All dictators resort to mass killings, a police state and a periodic wiping out of leadership because they fear all those around them and the people as well. Their fear is justified as there is no honor among thieves or political scoundrels.

Today, as I have discussed with you and Jim, I feel that once the NWO has finished using the Islamic terrorists to build their world socialist state, they will eliminate the terrorist elements--as they are the NWOs (who are leftists) anarchists. They are systematically dismantling all that has existed in the West--especially the idea of a Judeo-Christian based Republican democracy. They are providing the justification for a world government by demonstrating that individual Western countries are helpless against a world terrorist network. To defeat the Islamic terrorists, we are constantly told, we need a coalition army from many nations--which is the UN army that has been proposed and rejected since 1945. The Michael New incident and the use of such an army in Somalia was a feeble attempt to get the American people to accept the idea of a world army to fight evil (as defined by the elite).

The defeat of the US military in Korea, Vietnam and now the Middle East was staged to demonstrate that no single nation can resist the evil nations of the world. Obama recently stated this. A careful study of each of these wars demonstrates that our losses were engineered in Washington, just as the betrayal of Eastern Europe was engineered by FDR and the communists in our government. The engineering of the anti-war movement in the US was proven to be designed by higher ups in our elite ruling structures.

Stokeley Carmichael once told a large audience of his radical brothers that he had discovered that wealthy, white elitists were in fact controlling the black revolution during the Vietnam war. After he made this statement, he was never heard from again as a black leader. The same thing happened to Eldridge Cleaver.

This demonstrates the anarchist principle you discussed — the black revolutionaries were used by the hard Left and their masters, the wealthy elites of the NWO, to bring down America. It didn't work like they planned but the anti-war/black revolutionary movements played a pivotal role in our country's eventual domination by leftist ideas and philosophy. Our teaching institutions afterward were dominated by hard leftists, communist, socialists of every stripe and other collectivists. Likewise, the media has now among its ranks the hard left, which endlessly preaches the collectivist philosophy.

As I have always said, this could all end should the most wealthy, influential class of America — the leaders of the corporate/international banking world--use their power to stop this leftist insanity. But they don't and the reason they don't is that a central core of these powerful men want to recreate the world along a pattern not that far different than the one proposed by the Marxists/Jacobins — a collectivist, centrally controlled society of elites that encompasses the entire world. The evidence for this is overwhelming and they are no longer hiding their intentions.

Great series of articles Miguel — I hope you put this all together in a book. It would be of great value to us all.

Aristides Briand (1862-1932) was the French Premier and Foreign minister after World War I, the greatest proponent of international peace. Toward this end, he was the "chief architect" of the "Locarno Pact," creating the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland, to protect France– and prevent another war (1925)!

As in the case of U.S. President Barack Obama, who received a Nobel Peace Prize for what he intended to do as president, but immensely more deserving so (as the treaty passed), Briand won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1926 for his good intentions and his prevention of future world war!

In 1928 Foreign Minister Briand together with another dreamer, our U.S. Secretary of State, Frank B. Kellogg, under one of our greatest presidents, Calvin Coolidge, passed a treaty by which "all nations would settle all conflicts by peaceful means and renounce war as an instrument of national policy."

So war has already being outlawed by this Kellogg-Briand Pact, also known as the Pact of Paris (46 Stat. 2343, T.S. No. 796, 94 L.N.T.S. 57).

Germany, Italy, and Japan were told about this outlawing of war, but they rearmed, despite the League of Nations, Locarno and the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and by 1936, Hitler's armies had marched over and re-militarized the Rhineland. And later did they so as well as they undertook Poland's blitzkrieg, Operation Barbarossa– and World War II!

I must admit I admired their good intentions, but reality is reality. And the only security, given the nature of man, is peace through strength, as we learned from the greatest of all 20th century presidents, Ronald Reagan, and the collapse of the Evil Empire, which felt virtually without a shot being fired.

I just finished reading your most interesting paper, which analyzed the confusing nomenclature of the left. You asked for my observations so here they are:

As far as anarchy, I don't think any of the leaders of communism, including Marx, Engels and Lenin, ever truly believed in anarchy or anarchy-communism. The early writers of gnostic collectivism emphasized the importance of destruction of the existing culture in all of its aspects, and this is why they support the anarchist in their attempt to overthrow an existing society. This social destruction, of course, was central to the French Revolution, where they even used a calendar that started with the revolution as day one in history. As Gerhart Niemeyer states in his book, Between Nothingness and Paradise, the early writers of collectivism emphasized this destruction as essential to the coming change, that is, the revolution. He called it the “total critique of society.”

Lenin wrote extensively on this destructive policy, which was the origin of his war communism, that is, a revolution that never ends. The reason it never must end is that there will always be enemies who continue to adhere to the old culture, especially Christianity. Likewise, there will be those who eventually wake up and realize that the collectivists (the socialists/communists) cannot deliver on the promised utopia. When the awakening reaches a certain level, the Lenins of the world risk being overthrown. This is the purpose of the police state, to keep an eye on the populace and stem dissent as people begin to wake up.

What so many do not realize, again as you well know, is that the socialist/collectivist can never produce or create anything on its own and even Lenin realized this as he gain absolute power, that is, he had no idea how to run an economy. This was why he went back to capitalism (NEP), otherwise the experiment in communism would have collapsed rapidly. Gramsci, Mussolini and others also realized that absolute socialism/communism could never survive, that it was doomed to a state of progressive economic failure and a growing discontent of its populace.

In fact, the elite, in my view and many others, knew true communism (socialism) would never work. Their real aim was fascism, a merging of corporate/financial capitalists and socialists. Many are not aware that the criticism of Hitler's National Socialists from the West extended only to his racial policy and war policies; they fully supported his corporatism. And as you state, the modern collectivist American experience is in truth fascism. This is why we see the Federal Reserve banks, the International Bank of Settlements, the CFR, Bilderbergers and major international corporations in league with the collectivist intellectuals to create a New World Order.

No one, save possibly Niemeyer, has analyzed the philosophical origins of collectivism as well as Erik Voegelin in his book Science, Politics and Gnosticism. Basically there are two major competing systems of belief, one that is centered on a transcended truth from God and the other, has declared God dead and that man is his own god. The latter groups were the gnostics, which included Diderot, Meslier, Mably, Morelly, Saint-Simon, Feuerbach, Condorcet, Turgot, Marx, Lenin, etc. It is this group that accepted the Golem legend of the “new man.” As Voegelin points out, the two main characteristics of the gnostics is that they create their own reality and they do not have to answer questions. Marx when questioned on one of his socialist points, unable to do so, replied that the socialist man did not have to answer the non-socialist man. These same socialist founders all agreed likewise that the socialist did not need to answer questions and attempts to resort to real world observations (that is, reality itself) to show the weaknesses of socialism was futile because the socialists do not deal with the world of reality.

It is also interesting to observe that Lenin (and Marx) called for a dictatorship of the proletariat, yet it was the workers and peasants who made up the largest population of those in the gulags and victims of the mass killing. The average person thinks that Marx loved the proletariat, when in fact he saw the industrial worker as little more than a dirtily animal that needed to be cared for by its master. In your own country the greatest number of victims of Castro were and continue to be, the poorest and the workers. Communism/socialism has been called the “great lie”, which describes Voegelin's observation that collectivist gnostics live in an unreal world of their own making and that exist only in their own minds. Voegelin referred to Marx as an intellectual swindler. The nightmare that they actually create is never acknowledged because it is outside the illusion and because questions challenging the illusion are not allowed; the system persists.

Communism, socialism and modern forms of fascism would never have survived had it not been for the massive backing, both financially and politically, by Western intellectuals and men of great wealth, such as Rockefeller, Rothschild, J.P. Morgan, James Warburg and many others. It was by the combined wealth of the tax-exempt foundations that collectivism has won the day.

I really liked your paper and look forward to more of your writings.

Russell

Dr Russell L. Blaylock is a retired neurosurgeon, world renown nutritionist and neuroscientist, and the author of a number of books and papers, including Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills (1994), Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life (2002), and Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients (2003), and writes a monthly newsletter, the Blaylock Wellness Report (Newsmax.com).

Most people who verbally attack the Tea Party Movement, erroneously claim they are facists or terrorists. I've yet to hear the accusation that they are anarchists. Most self-proclaimed anarchists are vehmently anti-tea party. The fact that those who are against the Tea Party (which is not even a political party, but rather a politcal movement), almost always use lies to support their position supports the notion that they act based on emotion, rather than on logic or reality.

It's true that anarchy never becomes reality. The anarchists of Caledonia utterly failed, as mentioned by Dr. Faria. The supposed centuries old anarchist community in Ireland never actually existed as a true anarchial society. Most recently, the anarchy that was supped to make Somalia better, ended up being ruled by extremely violent gangs and warlords.

Men who have an uncontrollable lust for power will always use the naivete of anarchists against them. They will also use the laziness of "centrists" to attain ever greater levels of power. The only way to stop men like that is to remain vigilant. Unfortunately, the false sense of security, the overabundance of entertainment, and the deceptive illusion of modern comforts (that in times past were considered luxuries) have blinded and deafened most Americans. We are no longer willing to see what is right before our eyes, so we call it something else, so that we can maintain our exceeding comfortable lifestyle. Proof of that lies in the fact that we actually get excited when gasoline prices drop from $3.89 a gallon to $3.85 a gallon. We refuse to admit that high oil prices lead to high everything prices.

And so we continue to travel. We continue to go to the movies. We continue to buy top-shelf liquor. We continue to sit idly by and watch American Idol or play Modern Warfare 3, while the collapse of our economy happens right underneath our $2000 sectionals. The prophecies of December 21, 2012, might not be rooted in myth or the "end of the Mayan calendar" as we we have been led to believe. The end of our economy, followed by the end of our society, as we know it, might actually be only a half a year away. And it might survive the end-times prophecies of the Mayans, the Hopi, the ancient Chinese, and Nostradamus, only to squeak by for a few more months or even years, but the end of America as we know it is imminent.

Anarchists, communists, and a good many democratic voters imagine that to be a good thing. They refuse to acknowledge history and admit that their allies are really their enemies. They are blind to the fact that they will suffer the same fate as those of us who they are deaf to, who preach individual liberty and accountability, and strict limitation of government to the Rule of Law.

I am not sure I can stand that type of physical heat, but I can take a lot of heat from verbal combat with the liberal socialists!

I am glad you found this article on the political spectrum, the extreme right, anarchism! It is one of my favorites. I knew you would like it because of your grasp of history, politics, and literature. This is part of a three-part essay on the political spectrum. Most people have liked Parts I and II because to them it seems more relevant to the political situation today. In fact, Part I on the totalitarian left is the second most popularly read article on the website, after "Stalin's Mysterious Death."

I believe this article on anarchism seems a bit too obscure for the average political reader and too immersed in history and literature for their popular tastes.

You, uneed, Ben, and Matti are but a few of the readers here and elsewhere who have an intuitive grasp of what is at stake in this article — namely, that the socialists and communists are collectivists and totalitarians who will use those that align themselves with them. As soon as they attain power, particularly the communists, they will swiftly annihilate and devour their former "revolutionary friends" and naive fellow travelers ruthlessly and then establish a police state.

Dr. Faria.
After reading this great historical article;If I didn't know better I would believe I was reading headlines in a recent Newspaper.

The current Occupy Wall Street bunch along with our government that is pushing a hard socialist agenda and those of us that are attempting to limit the social progress of an out of control 'powerful government'; in my opinion walks hand in hand with this article.

We are fighting the left socialist in our country over traditional beliefs and values along with our faith .
And we have those that feel we should have no government to restrain anyone and are blinded by their own extremism.

All these agendas are coming together as I type my words brewing for our own next revolution in my opinion; if many in our country do not refrain from being blinded by "Progressives".

You have certainly given me much needed ammunition in my attempts to educate many in the small circle of our lives that believe it is best to give more control to our government. The anarchist believe they will win ;when in reality they will lose as we all will if we can't turn our country away from such radical thinking that socialism is best for us all.
We indeed know it will be the death of our great nation.
Thank you ..
uneed

Thanks for your illuminating comments that bring the historical points in the article to the present. I believe Collectivism, socialism, communism are evil philosophies; anarchism is a delusion and therefore they have always paid the price in blood for their folly.

Another point here worth emphasizing is that Obama's policies are closer to socialism and collectivism (Marxism) than the Tea Party activists are anywhere close to anarchy!

I hope you keep returning to this website for historical ammunition, useful to further illuminate the present with the light of knowledge of the past! The socialists want to remain in the shadows and keep us in the dark claiming that they do not even exist, that socialism is dead! We know better, and knowledge is power!